You two seem to be talking past each other. Might I suggest that perhaps the quality of information on OPL and/or Wikipdia/Wikisource sites is rather different depending on whether you are reading in French or English? I don't know if this is the case but it could explain the discrepancies between your experiences.
Birgitte SB --- On Thu, 9/3/09, David Goodman <dgoodma...@gmail.com> wrote: > From: David Goodman <dgoodma...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Universal Library > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > Date: Thursday, September 3, 2009, 2:19 PM > I have been re-reading their > documentation, and they have it well in > hand. We would do very well to confine ourselves to > matching up the > entries in the WMF projects alone. Some of the data in WMF > is more > accurate than some of the OL data, but I would not > say this to be a > general rule. Far from it: the proportion of incomplete or > inaccurate > entires in enWP is probably well over 50% for books. (for > journal > articles it is better, because of a project to link to the > pubmed > information) The accuracy & adequacy -- let > alone completeness-- of > the bibliographic information in WS is close to zero, > except where > there is a IA scan of the cover and title page, from which > full > bibliographic information might be derived, but cannot > necessarily be > taken at face value. > > The unification of editions is non-trivial, as using the > algorithm you > suggest, you will also have all works related to Verne, > and > additionally a combination of general and partial > translations, > children's books, comic adaptation, and whatever. > Modern library metadata provides for this to a certain > limited > extent--unfortunately most of the entries in current online > catalogs > do not show full modern data--many catalogs never had more > than > minimal records; Dublin core is probably not > generally considered to > be fully up to the problem either, at least in any current > implementation. > > Those working on the OL side are fully aware of this. They > have made > the decision to work towards inclusion of all usable & > obtainable data > sets, rather than only the ones that can be immediately > fully > harmonized. This was very wise decision, as the way in > which the > information is to be combined & related is not fully > developed, and , > if they were to wait for that, nothing would be entered. > There will > therefore be the problem of upgrading the records and the > record > structure in place--a problem that no large bibliographic > system has > ever fully handled properly--not that this incarnation of > OL is likely > to either. Bibliographers work for their time, not for all > time to > come. > > > David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG > > > > On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Yann Forget<y...@forget-me.net> > wrote: > > David Goodman wrote: > >> I have read your proposal. I continue to be of the > opinion that we are > >> not competent to do this. Since the proposal > says, that "this project > >> requires as much database management knowledge as > librarian > >> knowledge," it confirms my opinion. You will never > merge the data > >> properly if you do not understand it. > > > > That's all the point that it needs to be join project: > database gurus > > with librarians. What I see is that OpenLibrary lacks > some basic > > features that Wikimedia projects have since a long > time (in Internet > > scale): easy redirects, interwikis, mergings, deletion > process, etc. > > Some of these are planned for the next version of > their software, but I > > still feel that sometimes they try to reinvent the > wheel we already have. > > > > OL claims to have 23 million book and author entries. > However many > > entries are duplicates of the same edition, not to > mention the same > > book, so the real number of unique entries is much > lower. I also see > > that Wikisource has data which are not included in > their database (and > > certainly also Wikipedia, but I didn't really check). > > > >> You suggest 3 practical steps > >> 1. an extension for finding a book in OL is > certainly doable--and it > >> has been done, see > >> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Book_sources]. > >> 2. an OL field, link to WP -- as you say, this > is already present. > >> 3. An OL field, link to Wikisource. A very good > project. It will be > >> they who need to do it. > > > > Yes, but I think we should fo further than that. > OpenLibrary has an API > > which would allow any relevant wiki article to be > dynamically linked to > > their data, or that an entry could be created every > time new relevant > > data is added to a Wikipedia projects. This is all > about avoiding > > duplicate work between Wikimedia and OpenLibrary. It > could also increase > > accuracy by double checking facts (dates, name and > title spelling, etc.) > > between our projects. > > > >> Agreed we need translation information--I think > this is a very > >> important priority. It's not that hard to do a > list or to add links > >> that will be helpful, though not exact enough to > be relied on in > >> further work. That's probably a reasonable > project, but it is very > >> far from "a database of all books ever published" > >> > >> But some of this is being done--see the frWP page > for Moby Dick: > >> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moby_Dick > >> (though it omits a number of the translations > listed in the French Union > >> Catalog, > >> http://corail.sudoc.abes.fr/xslt/DB=2.1/CMD?ACT=SRCHA&IKT=8063&SRT=RLV&TRM=Moby+Dick] > >> I would however not warrant without seeing the > items in hand, or > >> reading an authoritative review, that they are all > complete > >> translations. > >> The English page on the novel lists no > translations; perhaps we could > >> in practice assume that the interwiki links are > sufficient. Perhaps > >> that could be assumed in Wiksource also? > > > > That's another possible benefit: automatic list of > > works/editions/translations in a Wikipedia article. > > > > You could add {{OpenLibrary|author=Jules > Verne|lang=English}} and you > > have a list of English translations of Jules Verne's > works directly > > imported from their database. The problem is that, > right now, Wikimedia > > projects have often more accurate and more detailed > information than > > OpenLibrary. > > > >> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG > > > > Regards, > > > > Yann > > -- > > http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la > non-violence > > http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net > > http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre > > http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres > > > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
